Clause 117
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I echo the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about you, Mr. Pope; it will be very good to serve under you today and in the coming weeks.
Amendment 14, which has been tabled in the names of the hon. Members for Newbury, for Upminster, for East Devon, for Clwyd, West and for Broxbourne, relates to MCZs and examines the important issue of science and how it is recognised within the clause. As the hon. Member for Newbury rightly said, for many people the clause is the Bill in many ways. The amendment also recommends that the MMO’s chief scientific adviser validate the science involved in each designation decision.
We are absolutely and entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for Newbury on the importance of the science, and I echo the comments of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Science is absolutely fundamental in determining where we will designate sites for MCZs. The drafting of clause 117 (1) ensures that scientific criteria form the basis of site proposals. It sets out specific grounds for designating MCZs, including the number and diversity of
“(a) marine flora or fauna;
(b) marine habitats or types of marine habitat;
(c) features of geological or geomorphological interest.”
I would like to make it clear, given that this is an important issue for the Committee, that clause 117 has been so drafted to ensure that science must, by necessity, form the basis of site proposals. In fact, the number and diversity of marine fauna and flora could not be determined without scientific evidence. Failure to make a designation decision on the basis of scientific evidence would mean, first, that the designating authority did not take account of reasonable considerations; secondly, that it would therefore have acted unreasonably; and thirdly, that the decision could then be considered for judicial review.
Although the science is imperative—it is so stated in clause 117—I do not think that the clause needs to include a specific reference to science. It is shot through the clause. Lord Greaves, in the other place, made a pertinent point on a similar Conservative amendment:
“I suspect, although it is normal for opposition parties generally to want more in Bills rather than less, that the Government are trying to be minimalist about what is in it. Nevertheless, I am not sure why the Conservative amendment”,—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. 1028.]
to ensure that the grounds for designating MCZs are based on science, is necessary, in the light of the provisions in the Bill.
The amendment is well intentioned; we completely agree on the importance of science in making these conservation-based decisions. However, I do not think that including in the definition of science the words
“including local conservation, environmental and global science”
would add anything to our understanding. It merely suggests that science should include local and global evidence. I believe that the hon. Member for Newbury is seeking a reassurance on our understanding and intentions regarding scientific evidence. I can reassure hon. Members that we fully expect to consider all relevant science, be it global or local, when designating MCZs. I am pleased that this amendment has highlighted the importance of keeping our definition of science flexible enough to allow for future developments in scientific knowledge and techniques. He rightly referred to climate change. We are facing ocean acidification and will face many other challenges over the next four, five or 10 years.
I shall deal now with the second aim of the amendment. Although I understand the desire for transparent assurances that MCZs have been designated in line with valid science, that is not a role for MMO scientific advisers. MCZs will be designated by the Secretary of State on advice and recommendations from Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. They are our scientific and conservation advisers. They are the Government’s statutory nature conservation bodies and have the necessary nature conservation expertise. We want part 5 of the Bill to have a conservation focus to ensure that the environment is adequately considered. It is therefore vital that the advice comes from the conservation bodies set up to do that. The Bill will ensure that the science is given the consideration desired, and as intended by the first part of the amendment.
The MMO, its chief scientific adviser or the Science Advisory Panel can, of course, make representations during consultation on proposed MCZs, and I fully expect them to do so. The appropriate authority—the Secretary of State, the Welsh Assembly Government and so on—would take such representations into account. We fully expect a transparent process in which the public too can view the scientific advice on MCZ designations. For example, Natural England will publish its advice to the Secretary of State setting out the results of regional projects as well as its own scientific recommendations. Consultation comments on potential MCZ sites and the Government’s responses will also be made public, as they should be. We want this to be transparent.
The Bill ensures that science will form the basis, as it should, of MCZ designation.